later, the Department of State said that, as such a declaration did not. constitute citizenship, and as the act of the Spanish Government preceded the naturalization of the claimant, his case presented "no ground for the favorable action of the Department." Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Alfonso, Nov. 13, 1884, 153 MS. See, to the same effect, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Varona. In 1886 Mr. Hall, United States minister in Central America, was instructed to request from the government of Nicaragua an explanation concerning a claim made by G. A. K. Morris, as a citizen of the United States, on account of injuries growing out of the alleged violation by Nicaragua of the rules of civilized warfare. Mr. Hall replied that the claim had previously been submitted to the German Government by Mr. Morris, who as late as 1884 represented himself as a German subject, and produced proofs of German nationality, which were authenticated by the United States consul at La Union, Salvador. Counsel for the claimant, on being advised of the circumstances, stated that, when his property was pillaged at Amapala, in 1863, he was a subject of Hanover, and entitled to the protection of Prussia; that Prussia at first espoused his cause, and sent out a corvette, which she was obliged to recall on account of the war with Austria; that in 1877 claimant made in New York, where his wife and daughter had for some years resided, a declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United States, and subsequently served as consular agent and consul of the United States in Central America; that the German Government, by reason of the declaration of intention, declined longer to exercise its good offices in his behalf, and that he consequently should receive the protection of the United States. Counsel cited in this relation the Kostza case (Lawrence's Wheaton, 176. note) and the case of Landreau, and suggested besides that the acts complained of were such as might properly have been prevented by any Christian power. The Department of State said: "You urge that the denial of justice by Nicaragua in refusing to consider his claim is a continuous act from which injuries are continually accruing to him. . . . I feel constrained to say that the view you thus advocate can not be admitted by this Department, it being conceded that the injury which the claimant sets up was sustained and consummated during the period when he was a German subject, and before he became a citizen of the United States. If denial of justice subsequent to the acquisition of citizenship takes the case out of the rule that a claim maturing before citizenship can not be the subject of diplomatic intervention, then the rule would itself be abrogated, since there is no litigated case in which such denial could not be set up. As regards the case of J. C. Land reau, it was finally decided by this Department not to press the claim on the ground, among others, that Landreau was not a citizen of the United States when it accrued. The case against Mr. Morris is strengthened by the fact that no evidence is offered that his attainment of American citizenship extended further than a declaration of intention to ask for it some ten years ago." Mr. Porter, Act. Sec. of State, to Messrs. Kennedy & Shellaberger, Jan. 4, 1887, S. Doc. 287, 57 Cong, 1 sess. July 22, 1899, Count Vinci, Italian chargé, communicated with the Department of State concerning the lynching during the preceding night of five Italians by a mob at Tallulah, La. Mr. Hay, as Secretary of State, immediately telegraphed to the governor of Louisiana, stating that the Italian chargé asked protection for any Italian subjects who might be in danger, and inquiring whether the persons lynched were "Italian subjects or naturalized Americans." Regret was expressed to the Italian chargé for the occurrence, and an assurance was given that the United States would take all legal steps which the facts might warrant to secure justice. An assurance was also given by the governor of Louisiana that every effort would be made to bring the perpetrators of the outrage to justice. The names of the victims were Giovanni Cirano, of Tusa; Francesco, Carlo, and Guiseppe Difatta, of Cefalo; and Rosario Fiducia, also of Cefalo. The outrage originated in a quarrel concerning a goat which belonged to one of the Difatta brothers, who carried on the grocery business at Tallulah. It seems that the goat was in the habit of climbing on the balcony of the house of a Dr. Hodge, who, becoming annoyed at it, hot it. The next day Carlo Difatta accosted Dr. Hodge in the street and struck him a blow with his fist. The doctor then shot him, and when he fell put his foot upon him, apparently intending to fire again. Giuseppe Difatta then shot at the doctor from a gun loaded with bird shot. A rumor having spread that Dr. Hodge had been killed, a mob quickly collected and went in search of Carlo and Giuseppe Difatta, who had succeeded in getting away and concealing themselves, while the sheriff arrested Francesco Difatta, Rosario Fiducia, and Giovanni Cirano and lodged them in jail. It was stated that Cirano and Fiducia had taken no part in the affray. Giuseppe and Carlo Difatta were found by the mob and were hanged, and the mob then went to the jail and took Francesco Difatta, Giovanni Cirano, and Rosario Fiducia and hanged them also. In August, 1899, the governor of Louisiana transmitted to the Department of State certificates of the naturalization of "Charles Defatta," dated June 28, 1899; Syha Deferach, dated June 28, 1899, and "Frank Defata," dated November 8, 1895. It was at first supposed that the person who was naturalized as Syha Deferach was Giuseppe Difatta, and that the real name of Carlo Difatta was Pasquale Difatta. Moreover, some of the evidence tended to show that Frank Defatta had, at the time of his naturalization, been in the United States only about a year and a half, and Charles Defatta only about two years; and on this ground the Italian embassy made the point that, as the certificates of naturalization did not expressly recite that the persons mentioned in them had previously made a declaration of intention, they must be considered only as first papers, or, if intended as final papers, must be considered as irregular and void. The Department of State, however, maintained that no recital of the declaration of intention was necessary, and that the papers were not defective in form as certificates of naturalization. September 14, 1899, Governor Foster transmitted to the Department of State the official report of the sheriff of Madison Parish on the lynching. According to this report, the affray began by Charles Defatta striking at Dr. Hodge with a knife as the doctor was on his way home in the evening. The doctor drew his pistol and struck his assailant over the head, and in the struggle fired a shot which did not take effect. At this point Joseph Defatta emptied both barrels of a shotgun into the doctor at close range, the shots taking effect. in his stomach, arms, and hands. On hearing the shots the sheriff proceeded to the scene of the shooting and found Frank Defatta. Syha Defferach (Giuseppe Defatta), and John Cyrano, one armed with a shotgun and the other two with pistols, running toward the scene of the disturbance. With the assistance of some citizens, the sheriff disarmed these three men, and after some resistance lodged them in jail. Meanwhile Charles Defatta had barricaded himself in his shop and defied arrest. The sheriff summoned a posse, broke in, and arrested him. Joe Defatta, who had concealed himself in an adjoining house, was discovered and arrested, but the sheriff, while taking them to jail, was overpowered by a mob, who took the prisoners and hung them. The mob then overpowered the jailer, secured the keys, and took the other three men from the jail and hung them. This was done in spite of a protest of the sheriff and officers of the court. It was stated that the reputation of the Sicilians was very bad. Joe Define, a relative and associate of the victims, who had left since the lynching, had assassinated a man, but had escaped punishment. Frank Defatta had killed a negro and had also escaped punishment. The circumstances indicated that a conspiracy had been formed to a It will be observed that Defatta is only the Anglicised form of the Italian Difatta. murder Dr. Hodge, and that Charles Defatta was selected to do the deed. This was the popular view of the matter, which, coupled with the fact that the victims were all taken with arms in their hands, led to the lynching. The night of the lynching was cloudy and dark, and the sheriff stated that he was unable to identify any of the perpetrators. September 20, 1899, the Department of State advised the Italian embassy that the grand jury had been unable to find an indictment. on the facts before it, and that the matter would be submitted anew to the grand jury at the next term of court. As the report of the sheriff differed from the accounts previously received, it was stated that a special agent would be sent to make the necessary investiga tions on the spot. For. Rel. 1899, 440-441, 444, 447-448, 453, 457, 458, 459, 461-463. See, By the act of March 3, 1901, Congress appropriated the sum of $4,000, to be paid, "out of humane consideration, without reference to the question of liability therefor, to the Italian Government as full indemnity to the heirs of Joseph Defatta and John Cyrano, Italian citizens who were lynched at Tallulah, Louisiana, on July 20, 1899.” (31 Stat., 1010.) Two reports were made by the agent of the Department of Justice. By these reports it appears that the person naturalized as Syha Deferach" was in reality Rosario Fiducia, and that Joseph (Giuseppe) Defatta had not been naturalized. (Mr. Griggs, At. Gen., to Sec. of State, March 23, 1901, MS. Misc. Let.) As to the claim of Giuseppe Defina, in connection with the Tallulah lynching, see S. Doc. 95, 57 Cong. 1 sess. In declining to present a diplomatic claim to the Government of Austria, Mr. Marcy said: "The wrong you complain of was done more than six years before you were a citizen of the United States, and while you were a subject of the Emperor of Austria. The application you make seems to require this Government to interpose in a matter between the Austrian Government and one of its subjects. That was the practical relation when the act complained of took place. It can not, therefore, be said to be an injury done to one of our citizens, but only to a person who several years afterwards became a citizen of the United States.” Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Ujhazi, Aug. 26, 1856, 45 MS. Dom. Let. 468. By adopting a foreigner, under any form of naturalizat, as a citizen, this government does not undertake the patronage of a claim which he may have upon the country of his original allegiance or upon any other government. To admit that he can charge it with this burden would allow him to call upon a dozen governments in succession, to each of which he might transfer his allegiance, to urge his claim. Under such a rule the government supposed to be indebted could never know when the discussion of a claim would cease. All governments are, therefore, interested in resisting such pretensions." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Miller, May 16, 1871, 89 MS. Dom. Let. 348. Where a person, who was naturalized in the United States in 1874, asked for diplomatic intervention in order to obtain the restoration of his property which was embargoed in Cuba in 1871, the Department of State said: "When your alleged injuries took place you were not a citizen of the United States, and therefore, under well-established canons of international law, it is not within the province of this Government to inquire whether your property was wrongfully or rightfully taken. . It would be a monstrous doctrine, which this Government would not tolerate for a moment, that a citizen of the United States who might deem himself injured by the authorities of the United States or of any State, could, by transferring his allegiance to another power, confer upon these powers the right to inquire into the legality of the proceedings by which he may have been injured while a citizen." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bachiller, April 8, 1874, 102 MS. Dom. See, to the same effect, Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Messrs. Coudert Broth- "Subsequent naturalization does not alter the international status of a claim which accrued before naturalization." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Golding, Apr. 30, 1886, 160 MS. Dom. See, also, Mr. Porter, Act. Sec. of State, to Messrs. Kennedy & Shella- "The position that the claimant is not entitled to redress, because, though the confiscation and appropriation of the proceeds of the estate took place after he became a citizen of the United States, the embargo was laid before that citizenship was perfected, cannot be maintained. Both by the Roman and the English common law, it is an established principle (as is more fully illustrated in the report of the solicitor, of which I inclose a copy) that where an injurious procedure is put in motion in such a way as to have a continuous |